  Newtomotown Member Username: Newtomotown Post Number: 30 Registered: 03-2008 |
Let me make sure I understand this - During the past year, GM has taken a $39B write down, shed over 60,000 jobs, closed countless plants, and just yesterday drew down on their line of credit. Still, the UAW and its leadership at Detroit Hamtramck Assembly Plant have decided that GM needs to give them more. More of what? What does GM still owe the UAW? They have 100% company paid health care, tuition reimbursement, guaranteed cost of living increases, paid vacations, and, oh, the jobs bank. For those of you who don't know what that is; when your plant closes and there are no other jobs available, you get paid for a period of two years - without actually working. The partnership between the UAW and General Motors seems destined to fail. With declining market share and increasing costs for capital, the UAW wants to hold GM hostage for more of what they don't have. In the end, it will be the UAW that doesn't have members because they don't have jobs. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6258 Registered: 10-2003 |
Do you have a link to an article explaining specifically the case you're referring to? Which Local was it? | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2505 Registered: 02-2007 |
A classic example of whats killing the automotive industry. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1844 Registered: 12-2005 |
You didn't provide a link, but I know enough about local contracts to tell you that this rejection has nothing to do with compensation and benefits. Those are all covered in the National Agreement which was settled last fall. The local agreement covers work rules and operating conditions in the plant. Now you should have enough information to hopefully understand this. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6259 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thank you, Mike. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 5456 Registered: 02-2004 |
Thanks, Mikeg. Though the haters will hate, information is good. | ||
Cincinnati_kid Member Username: Cincinnati_kid Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2006 |
Another misinformed individual spreading hate of autoworkers and the UAW in general. Give it a rest!•• Nobody is complaining about the CEO's still making millions of dollars during this crisis. Is anyone asking them to take a paycut? Gimme a ------ break. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2195 Registered: 09-2005 |
Newtomotown: "More of what? What does GM still owe the UAW?" I am not sure about GM, but in regard to the OP, how about........honesty and accuracy. | ||
Ltdave Member Username: Ltdave Post Number: 282 Registered: 09-2006 |
""100% company paid health care, tuition reimbursement, guaranteed cost of living increases, paid vacations, and, oh, the jobs bank."" granted i work for a different big 3, the national contracts are not entirely different between them all... A) 100% paid health care is no more... B) tuition assistance only applies to classes that are directly related to your job... C) COLA payments have been cut with what we used to get being rolled into the VEBA... D) the jobs bank requires employees (at least in my company) to provide 40 hours of community service. but you cant volunteer to work in parks and recreation (if cutting grass, lifeguarding, picking up trash or other park related work is your idea of enjoyable work) because its not considered charitable work. E) NO ONE else gets paid vacations? my dad always got one and he worked for the railroad. my sister always got one when she worked in a hospital (shes a nurse). my father in law gets one. he works for a cement company. as Mikeg stated, Local contracts have nothing to do with the National. Local contracts deal with getting the employers to provide a certain number of restrooms, keeping them clean (janitorial is no longer a company function in my company, its outsourced to a cleaning company) maintaining a contract for equipment leasing (highlows, choreboys etc) keeping the sidewalks clear of ice and snow, maintaining FEDERALLY required safety equipment and so on... my plant has lost anywhere from 14 to 45 MILLION every year because we provide a 'product' to our own company but our plant manager (grade 93 or 94) gets a bonus of 100% of his salary. why? | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2568 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: And Apologists will apologize. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1728 Registered: 12-2003 |
It's good to know the "union" of overpaid managers and CEOs still has a few brainwashed fans. The ignorance about things like "100% paid health insurance" is beyond ridiculous. | ||
Newtomotown Member Username: Newtomotown Post Number: 31 Registered: 03-2008 |
In response to your questions and comments: Lmichigan - UAW Local 22 is located at Detroit Hamtramack Oldredfordette - I have no hatred for the UAW or company management. Why can't you enter into a spirited debate without labeling me a "hater?" Mikeg - what work rules and operating conditions? Cincinnati_kid - Disagreeing with your point of view does not involve hatred of any sort, so let's stop the nonsense and discuss both sides of the issue. You are absolutely right, the CEO's should not have been compensated one cent for their dismal performances. Rick Waggoner and his cronies should have been fired a long time ago but it appears the Board of GM is drunk on their own Kool Aid and think the current leadership is on the right path. Explain how that works. Alan55 - Amen to honesty and accuracy. ltDave - Thank you for a real answer to my question!•• | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 2105 Registered: 11-2003 |
100% paid health insurance? Please provide a cite. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 5458 Registered: 02-2004 |
When did I call you a hater? I said the haters would hate and they sure enough chimed in. I've never read any of your posts before, or at least that I remember. | ||
Newtomotown Member Username: Newtomotown Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2008 |
East_Detroit - http://www.usatoday.com/money/ autos/2006-09-07-uaw-chrysler_ x.htm. When I say 100% employer paid healthcare, I am referring to the cost of coverage. "Hourly workers won't be required to pay deductibles or monthly contributions, but they will have to contribute part of their future wage increases to a trust for future health care expenses. The agreement also raises the cost of prescription drugs and institutes a $50 emergency room fee for retirees." Through my employment, I contribute a significant amount of my annual salary to my family's coverage in addition to co-pays, deductibles and prescription drugs. Oldredfordette - please accept my apology, I thought you were referring to me. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2508 Registered: 02-2007 |
Yeah unions are great for business, especially businesses going out of business. The unions aren't doing anyone any favors except themselves. Wise up. You know their motto: "Whatever they offer, it isn't enough" Translation: Hold out for as much as you can get us, even if it costs you your job, we don't care" | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 5459 Registered: 02-2004 |
Accepted. My husband is a retired Ford hourly worker and he has been paying into his healthcare (co-pays and prescriptions) for many contracts now. I haven't heard of 100% coverage in a long time in the hourly world (though there might be some left). | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1730 Registered: 12-2003 |
You know their motto: "Whatever they offer, it isn't enough" Translation: Hold out for as much as you can get us, even if it costs you your job, we don't care" Obviously you've never been involved in bargaining. There is compromise on both sides, that can be seen in the concessions given by both the union and management in most current contracts. Health care co-pays, new job classifications, new language about plant closures and layoffs; contracts are hammered out in a middle ground between the union's wants and the company's, in an entirely different economic environment today than the one in which contracts of the '60s and '70s were settled. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2509 Registered: 02-2007 |
Pfft, Nice paint job. Unfortunately the reality is the unions are dying because of their greed. Plain and simple. They aren't concerned about company success. If they were, they wouldn't strike and intentionally put the businesses in peril. Union negotiation is legalized blackmail and coercion. When the host dies, so does the parasite. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1731 Registered: 12-2003 |
Company management, of course, has never used coercion over their employees ... | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 2197 Registered: 09-2005 |
"Unfortunately the reality is the unions are dying because of their greed." What nonsense. You single out "union greed", but the execs getting 50, 100, even 400 million-dollar bonuses are perfectly acceptable? If you want to talk about parasites, then maybe you can discuss that tapeworm Lee Raymond from Exxon-Mobil. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 2107 Registered: 11-2003 |
Which of the Lehman Bros unionized employees brought the company down? How much in bonuses were paid to the executive management last year? quote: Doesnt sound like 100% paid healthcare. Regardless, people only complain about expenses when they cant think of how to increase revenue. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 635 Registered: 08-2007 |
The reality is that there is no academic research that shows a relationship between unionism and companies going out of business. There is some research that shows unionized firms are less profitable than non-union firms. But even this research does not show the cause-and-effect, only a correlation. So for anyone to draw a conclusion that unions drive companies out of business or offshore, is really pretty ignorant of the real facts. In fact, the opposite argument can be made - that in countries with a strong union movement, more jobs are kept in the country. This is because a powerful union and companies can lobby together for good governmental trade policies that favor keeping jobs in the country. | ||
Warrenite84 Member Username: Warrenite84 Post Number: 393 Registered: 01-2007 |
The Big 3 have been chipping away at the work rules for some time now. Some cuts can be made with minimal pain but combining trades or putting trades into related work groups is ridiculous. The latter is when another trade is allowed or made to do work outside their trade if it interferes with the assigned work assignment. The worker in one trade WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for work done outside their trade. Training? What training? The whole reason for this is to combine and eliminate trades to cut staffing. A Jack of all trades and master of none. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2511 Registered: 02-2007 |
Ford just spent 12 Billion dollars to get some of their workers to leave and not return. Thats an example of costs to get rid of people in unions. How does one back into that cost? Seriously, where is the meat of that? What do they have to show for that cost? In Business costs affect your bottom line in relation to your profit margin. If they are operating on a 30% profit margin, they just threw close to 40 billion dollars worth of business right out the window with that travesty of compensation. Frank your whole post above is one contradiction after another. Union companies aren't as profitable, but that has nothing to do with them going out of business? Loss of profits, eventual collapse and the cause is not at fault? Union's excuse for everything is blame management. It's managements fault when companies are being forced to compete on a global stage with 2000% disadvantage in the cost of labor. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 636 Registered: 08-2007 |
Sstashmoo, no, my post was not contradictory. There is a difference being being less profitable and going out of business. If a company is on the ropes, a union will usually agree to concessions, unless the company is going bankrupt solely because of very poor management decisions and labor costs are already competitive. It doesn't serve a union's interest to put it's members out of work. Further, these studies I made reference to do not show a causal relationship - that is, that unions cause companies to have lower profits. It could just as well be the case that lower profitability companies are organized by unions more frequently (like maybe they don't treat their workers as well?). But in any case, I cannot find any academic research that shows a causal link between unionization and companies either going bankrupt or going overseas. Also, Sstashmoo, regarding your claim of companies having a 2000% labor cost disadvantage with overseas workers. Assuming a 20% wage premium for unions, that 2000% cost advantage for overseas companies would still be a 1600% cost advantage over nonunion firms in the US. The reality is that large of a wage differential is what is driving business overseas, not the union. A company still cannot compete on a global stage with a 1600% cost disadvantage, ceterus parabus. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2573 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Because it is always one sided. Everyone always reads about a bonus, which is never all cash BTW. But no one ever reads things like GM hourly wages costs 8 Billion a year(100k workers at a $40/hr expense). quote: Union costs are usually never competitive because that are immune to changes in the market until the next contract. They can be competitive at one time but as things change they do not change quick enough. Nor are they willing to change quick enough to ensure their health into the future. For example, current employees voting against retiree benefits. quote: But there are studies that show as Unions increase membership compensation, there is no corresponding productivity increase to cover the compensation. As a result lower investments in R&D, Capital improvements, employments numbers and sales growth. Perfect example is the car industry, as the unions have negotiated membership compensation to be similar as so no company had a advantage over the other, the costs were passed onto the consumers. Those non-employee consumers who did not have the advantage of thousands in discounts moved onto to other available products that suited their needs or proved an even platform. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid and look at the world around you and realize that you are not improving, you are rats on a sinking ship. This country has always progressed, whether in human rights, worker rights, education, etc. Now we are in a status quo as people strive to maintain their attachment to an industry that is not growing. It is time to move forward into the industries that has lapped the car industry. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1732 Registered: 12-2003 |
It is time to move forward into the industries that has lapped the car industry. How is it that most anti-union folks can't write a grammatical sentence? | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2516 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "How is it that most anti-union folks can't write a grammatical sentence?" Why is it that most of those who complain "cannot" either? | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1733 Registered: 12-2003 |
Can't is the accepted contraction of "cannot." Next? | ||
Ltdave Member Username: Ltdave Post Number: 283 Registered: 09-2006 |
""The whole reason for this is to combine and eliminate trades to cut staffing. A Jack of all trades and master of none."" what few people know is that the UAW originally only wanted a small handful of classifications for skilled trades workers but the companies wanted to split everyone up into many many different classes and then pay them over a wide scale of as much as a $1... now the companies see that fewer classes with fewer pay scales simplifies things... | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 637 Registered: 08-2007 |
Ltdave that is a good point. Let's not forget it was Frederick Taylor, the Father of Scientific Management, who proposed deskilling workers and giving management more control of their jobs. That is exactly what a large number of job classifications entail. That is the way companies set things up from the turn of the last century forward. Unions became more powerful and simply reinforced this already existing structure. Management has a hard time, sometimes, getting unions to change the way things are because management has given unions no reason to trust them. Where unions trust management, changes can happen much more quickly to react to global and marketplace changes. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2517 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Management has a hard time, sometimes, getting unions to change the way things are because management has given unions no reason to trust them." When the companies are gone it will make things much easier for the unions. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6273 Registered: 10-2003 |
Could you possibly be more hyperbolic and over-dramatic? The entire premise of your whole worldview is inherently flawed, and you offer a false choice. The argument is never between companies vs unions for simple survival. These two are partners, always have been and always will be, and they work in nation's with unions far more powerful and influencial than the UAW. So, stop with the hyperbole and false choices, already. You all lost that argument decades, ago. (Message edited by lmichigan on September 23, 2008) | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 3685 Registered: 10-2003 |
For Tashmoo: http://uaw.org/barg/07fact/fac t08.php | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 1472 Registered: 11-2003 |
I could tell that Newtomotown's thread was way off base just from the assertion that GM in the past year has "closed countless plants." Huh? In the past year, GM has announced the closure of about 4 plants. Doesn't sound like "countless" to me. And Newtomowtown's complete ignorance of local union agreements makes it hard to take any of his argument seriously. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2579 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: It wasn't written, it was posted.  | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2520 Registered: 02-2007 |
So the UAW is good for auto industry on the whole? Then why are they outsourcing plants to countries where there is no UAW? Why do the companies say the UAW, legacy costs, benefits etc. is killing them? Are they just lying about that? It's easy to go along with bad math when the inaccuracies are in your favor. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1736 Registered: 12-2003 |
The auto industry in Japan and Germany are unionized. Don't hear about the unions "killing" the Japanese auto industry, do we? Did the son of a union worker steal your lunch in second grade or something? | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 639 Registered: 08-2007 |
Ssashmoo, you are buying into hype. Why are companies outsourcing to other countries? Wages is one big reason. The average manufacturing worker in the US makes what, $16 per hour or so? Let's say the average union worker make a 20% premium over that, to $20 an hour. In China, they are paying workers $0.56 per hour. The difference between union and nonunion is not what is driving companies out of this country. It is the difference between $0.56 per hour and $16 per hour, not the difference between $16 and $20 per hour. Legacy costs are definitely a problem. But these legacy costs are not a function of the union. They are a problem for the salaried workforce, too. The basic problem is that some companies have a lot of retirees, and other companies don't. But OK, if you want to blame the unions for forcing a company to honor its promises to retirees, go ahead. | ||
Ltdave Member Username: Ltdave Post Number: 284 Registered: 09-2006 |
the cost of doing business in the states is not only wages... did any of you see the WDIV special that Devin Scillian did called Made in China? he toured some of the manufacturing plants in china that showed the workers living in multi-bed dormatories, eating in company dining 'facilities' with their daily ration of cold rice, while working without ANY personal protective clothing or gear, running milling machines with metal cutting fluids spraying everything and everyone... there are NO environmental rules or regulations that we have in the states so there is no money needed for compliance with all of the EPA laws. there arent much in the way of labor laws either... a good example was a company in grand rapids that made some kind of machined part for the auto industry. their cost HERE was about $3 (its been a LONG time since ive seen the clip) they dismantled ALL of the machinery, crated it up and shipped to china where the labor costs dropped the price to under $0.75 per. i dont think the company was unionized so whos fault is it the company went overseas? | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1307 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's no longer acceptable to just make a profit anymore, especially for large companies. The supercapitalist culture of Wall Street (see where that got us) says that not only do you need to make a profit, but always be growing and always be making a higher profit. In short, you can't stay the same and get a higher stock price. Without a solid stock price, you can't get credit, you can't get investment, in short, you can't get the money you need. This line of thought permeates down through MBA programs, business classes, and more. I can't tell you how many times I've heard from "educators" that you should outsource everything you can. A buddy of mine who got his MBA talked about how a year and a half of his program was indoctrination that American workers are bad and the cheapest possible price is best for everything. I think it's the culture, not all management or all unions, per se. That, and we want $1 T-shirts at Walmart as a nation (I use the royal "we"). As long as that's the case, you're not going to see much change, except that eventually, it'll go to an even lower cost country. After all, Mexico has lost huge amounts of industry to Asia, because they're even cheaper. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2521 Registered: 02-2007 |
Frank, you keep saying 20 bucks an hour for union employees. It's over 70 dollars an hour for workers in the UAW. When all costs of that employee are factored in. No Pfft, nobody stole my lunch, I own a calculator and understand the difference between $70.00 and $00.56. Also understand that with the difference in the cost of labor, deep concessions are going to have to be made if companies ever hope to become even remotely competitive on the world stage. I don't hate unions, just pointing out the hypocrisy of thinking there is some future for our economy in extorting money from companies that are dying. How do you guys feel about trade with China? Just wondering, I mean you gotta be all over against it. Quote: "But OK, if you want to blame the unions for forcing a company to honor its promises to retirees, go ahead." Shit happens. I got a feeling Frank, there is going to be a lot of broken promises in the near future. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 640 Registered: 08-2007 |
Sstashmoo, I was talking the "average manufacturing employee" and although I didn't go to the BLS website to look up these statistics I have earlier and I believe they are in the ballpark. Assembly plant workers do make more than other type of manufacturing employees, that is for sure. But, if you look at what Toyota (nonunion) is paying their assembly plant workers in Georgretown KY you'll see that they pay about what the Big 3 pay the assembly workers up here. The pay structure is a bit different but the total compensation is roughly the same. Some years they even make more than the Big 3 union workers. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2598 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Different mindsets, different goals, different results. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 6292 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah, the difference being that the governments actually take care of their citizens in those nations. Businesses and workers don't have to worry about healthcare costs, because it's already taken care of. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2603 Registered: 12-2003 |
You mean the health care system where the employer pays 50% and the employee picks up the other 50%. |
